Whiskey Rebellion Summary
Why the right rebellion and whiskey Shays' Rebellion was wrong?
need a brief summary
Whiskey Rebellion I was wrong, as it was the first challenge the new federal government and had to be deleted to show that the federal government was strong. Please see below and links to backup thereof. **************************************** ********** *********** Shays Rebellion was an armed uprising in Central and Western Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787. The rebels, led by Daniel Shays and known as Shaysites (regulators) were mostly poor farmers angered by crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtor's prisons or claim of ownership by the state. The rebellion began on August 29, 1786. A militia that had arisen as a private army defeated an attack the federal Springfield Armory by the main Shaysite force on 3 February 1787. There was a lack of institutional response to the uprising, which energized calls reevaluate the Articles of Confederation and gave strong impetus to the Constitutional Convention which began in May 1787. ************************ ********* The Whiskey Rebellion, less commonly known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a popular uprising that had its beginnings in 1791 and culminated in an insurgency in 1794 in the town of Washington, Pennsylvania, the Monongahela Valley. The rebellion occurred shortly after the Articles of Confederation had been replaced by a strong federal government under the American Constitution in 1789. This was the first time under the new Constitution of the United States that the federal government use military force to exert authority over the citizens of the nation. He was also one of only two times that a sitting President personally commanded the army in the field. (The other was after President James Madison fled the British occupation of Washington, DC during the War of 1812.) Military repression Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent that U.S. citizens who wish to change the law had to do so peacefully through constitutional means, otherwise, the government would meet any threats to disturb the status quo in place.